4.4 Article

Seasonal water use by deciduous and evergreen woody species in a scrub community is based on water availability and root distribution

期刊

ECOHYDROLOGY
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 538-551

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/eco.1523

关键词

stable isotopes; dry seasonal plant community; Florida sandhill; deciduous; evergreen; water source use; rooting depth

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a seasonally dry plant community of central Florida, USA, that experiences water limitation in the dry season and high water availability in the wet season, we first tested whether evergreen woody species shift from shallow water in the wet season to deep water in the dry season. Second, we tested whether deciduous woody species restrict water uptake to the shallow soil during the wet season and cease water uptake during the dry season. To address these questions, we measured water source use of two deciduous and three evergreen species over 13months using stable isotopes. As hypothesized in previous studies, we showed that leaflessness in deciduous plants is an important source of stem water isotopic fractionation. Therefore, we compared stable isotope ratios of stem water only when deciduous species had leaves and found that all species, except the evergreen Lyonia ferruginea, used proportionally the same water sources. Early dry season water use was based on water availability for all species except L. ferruginea, and deep soil (50-150cm) was the most important water source. During the late dry and wet seasons, water uptake from each soil layer was based on its respective proportion of fine roots. Nevertheless, deep water remained an important water source throughout the year. This study clearly demonstrates the limitations of using stable isotopes of stem water when comparing deciduous versus evergreen species. Further, this study is the first to directly quantify depth of water uptake via isotope analysis and couple these findings with root distribution. Copyright (c) 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据